Single Payer Universal Health Care

[Muscleman]

On Mon, 24 May 2004 12:55:06 GMT, mike gray <[email protected]> wrote:

>MuscleMan wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 23 May 2004 17:16:46 GMT, mike gray
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Ted Rosenberg wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Skeptic wrote:
>>>>> I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but
>>>>> let me try to
>>>> <snipped for brevity)
>>>>
>>>> You have one major mistake, and it is a MAJOR one.
>>>> Medicare overhead is a very small fraction of overhead
>>>> of prepaid health plans.
>>>>
>>>> The current system where the Blues and Aetna provide
>>>> most of the health care in the US is incredibly
>>>> inefficient.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>And you have made a MAJOR mistake. Administrative costs
>>>are computed very differently for government and private
>>>entities. When they are figured on the same basis, they
>>>are very close.
>>
>>
>> Cite?
>
>Private company 10Ks and the federal budget.

show it. Show the amount and cite here.

 

[Muscleman]

On Mon, 24 May 2004 10:18:36 -0700, "Proconsul" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in
>message news:[email protected]
>nk.net...
>|
>| "Proconsul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>| news:Ercsc.19015$PU5.11968@fed1read06...

>The most important thing is that single payer, like most
>socialist programs, doesn't work - costs escalate and
>quality of service goes down.

That is happening here with the supposed free market. It is
not happening with socialized medicine. I keep asking you
guys for cites. I know you haven't any proof at all .You
have a religious belief and that is it.

If you went
>to most of those socialist paradises that rhapsodize about
>the wonders of their system, you'd find the quality of care
>is lower than that we provided for cats and dogs in
>veterinary hospitals in this country......

I know for a fact that isn't true. I know diabetics in
Canada who are okay. I also know we are rated pretty low for
healthcare worldwide.

>
>And, just as an aside, IF the Sierra Club and the whackos
>they represent had their way, gasoline would cost more like
>$20 a gallon......

You guys are pretty scared of Kerry aren't you? Step aside
dinosaur...time for he mammals to rule the earth.

 

[Herman Rubin]

In article <[email protected]>,
MuscleMan <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 24 May 2004 12:17:15 -0500, [email protected]
>(Herman Rubin) wrote:

>>In article
>><[email protected]>,
>>George Conklin <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>"Bob Blaylock" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>message news:BobHatesSpam-
>>>[email protected]...
>>>> A socialist spammer... Thinks the answer's to be
>>>> found... In big government.

>>> And you think that monopoly medicine provides any
>>> alternatives? There are NONE. Pay what is asked or get
>>> lost. That is your solution: twice as expensive and
>>> getting more so. You spam for the rich.

>>No, there is competition in present medicine. It is the
>>government run operations which provide no alternatives.
>>It often ends up that you are stuck with the inadequate
>>doctor they assign you, or you get NOTHING.

>Maybe you need to go back to econ class buddy, but only
>with easy entry and exit is there truly competition, and
>that exists nowhere i nthe US for healthcare.

It would if the government got completely out of it, except
for the antitrust provisions. The Supreme Court ruled
against the anticompetitive measures on the part of
physicians and medical organizations. The ones we have now
are on the part of the HMOs, with some court cases against
them, "insurance" companies, and the government.

I have published little in economics, but I am known in
econometrics. I suggest you check with them.

Also, if you are so knowledgeable about economics, what is
the tragedy of the commons? This is what you are suggesting
we impose, a commons.

>>I have had some experience with government directives
>>here. When my late mother was injured in an automobile
>>accident, the ambulance could not take her to the hospital
>>she asked for, but had to take her to the nearest
>>accredited hospital. She had abominable care until she did
>>get moved.

You are not likely to find much else for either point of
view.

You do not believe the waiting lists in Canada, or even
worse from the NHS in England. It is "free", if the
government will let you have it at all.

--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that
these views are those of the Statistics Department or of
Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics,
Purdue University [email protected] Phone: (765)494-
6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

 

[Ted Rosenberg]

Herman, I have never heard such a bunch of **** from someone
whoo supposedly has a brain
1) We have, by any measure, the worst health system in the
world
2) If you don't have ghealth insurance, have assets over
$300, and are not rich, you can't get medical care, ANY
medical care.. If brought into an ER, they have to
stabalize you before throwing you out, but they WILL
through you out as soon as you are stabalized.
3) Genetics has nothing to do with the US lifespan numbers,
as almost all the components of the US population have
longer lifespans than the US.
4) The gasoline taxes pay for the ROADS you ride on - you
won't need any gas at all if you don't have roads - Or, I
guess you expect them to materialize

Herman Rubin wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Eva
> Whitley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Proconsul wrote:
>
>
>>>"W. Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>| In alt.support.diabetes Proconsul <[email protected]>
>>>| wrote:
>
>
>>>| : "Skeptic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>| : news:9Jbsc.103231$iF6.9532547@attbi_s02...
>
>
>>>| : | "Ted Rosenberg" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>| : | message news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>>>| : | > Skeptic wrote:
>
>
> .....................
>
>
>
>
>
>>>A free market, with competition, mitigates for "fee for
>>>service" and choice for the consumer. Our system provides
>>>the finest health care in the world for everyone, even
>>>illegal aliens who broke the law to enter the country.
>>>High prices are due to bureaucratic excesses and phony
>>>"controls". The free market with competition is the
>>>answer, not HMO's, which are a pathetic travesty on
>>>decent medical care....
>
>
>
>>If it's the finest health care in the world, why do many
>>other countries have longer living people
>
>
> Have you heard of genetics? Oliver Wendell Holmes, when
> asked how to live to a ripe old age, answered, "Choose
> your grandparents carefully."
>
> There are also a large number of people who have no idea
> of how to take care of anything, or how to evaluate
> anything. Our "educational" system greatly increases the
> problem.
>
> and why do inner city babies have the
>
>>mortality rate of a third world country?
>
>
> The intelligence and knowledge of the inner city parents
> is sufficiently low that they do not make use of the
> medical care available, do not have remotely intelligent
> diets, and quite a few other things.
>
> If competition worked, gas
>
>>would be half of what it is. There's a gas station on
>>every corner, practically.
>
>
> A recent article had the average gasoline tax at roughly
> 40 cents on a gallon. The price of oil now is about $40
> per barrel, or $1.27 per gallon. There is the cost of
> refining and distribution, taxes on the gas station, other
> fees, and the owners should be entitled to make SOME
> profit. The lack of competition is due to OPEC, a super-
> government organization.
>
> BTW, the number of gas stations in the western part of
> West Lafayette is less than half as many as 10 years ago.
>
>
>>I dare y'all to go to 7500 Security Blvd., near Baltimore
>>and tell the workers there they're overpaid. How much do
>>they make?
>
>
> Are they worth what they make? Why can you not get shirts
> ironed at a laundry? This disappeared when the minimum
> wage rose enough. As the minimum wage is now about half
> the average wage in many fields, only experienced and good
> workers can be hired.

--
"...in addition to being foreign territory the past is, as
history, a hall of mirrors that reflect the needs of souls
observing from the present" Glen Cook

 

[Jonathan Smith]

mike gray <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> matt weber wrote:
>
> > Because in the USA, someone other than the patient
> > usually pays, and patient is almost entirely isolated
> > from the cost issue, as is the physician, when a patient
> > walks in and says my shoulder is bothering me, can you
> > write me a prescription for Celebrex or Viox? The
> > physician will happily do so.

Why is this necessarily a bad thing? Under the assumption
that there is a doctor-patient relationship and the
physician does an exam to look for something other than
muscle or joint pain due to exertion or perhaps a touch of
arthritis, thuis makes a lot of sense. What would you do in
this case?

> That is, indeed, a major problem with the US system and
> I'll give you another example. I sprained my wrist, went
> to the corner dugstore and bought an Ace bandage. $3 and
> it was fine in five weeks. My Medicare friend sprained his
> wrist, went to the ER, X-rays, orthopedic specialist, and
> seven weeks of physical therapy even though it was fine in
> five weeks.

And Medicare would be that huge efficient single payer model
that we all want and need?

> But "rationing" has become a buzzword in the US roughly as
> evil as "holocaust". An insured patient who goes to a
> doctor with a sprained wrist and gets only an Ace bandage
> will certainly sue and just as certainly win.

If the sprain wasn't a sprain and the failure to diagnose
results in a permanent disability - yes, that is what would
happen. Explain to me why it shouldn't.

> This has created another problem: US doctors are scared to
> death of their own patients. Very unhealthy situation.

I don't believe they are - they may be a bit apprehensive
over their patients lawyers - so lets fix that.

js

 

[George Conklin]

"Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> mike gray <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<3WHsc.26553$fF3.682402@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > Skeptic wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >> With single payer, you've always had the coverage, so
> > >> how can there
be a
> > pre-existing
> > >> condition?
> > >
> > > Will all coverage be equal? Will there be levels of
> > > coverage? Will
there
> > > be coinsurance?
> >
> > One of the barriers to universal health care is the
> > leveling of coverage. For the uninsured and
> > underinsured, that's great news, but for union members,
> > government employees, and employees of generous
> > companies it will be a huge loss.
> >
> > All proposals to date have permitted coinsurance,
>
> Which proposals are those? Kerry's? Kucinich?
>
> > primarily to satisfy the groups that now have Cadillac
> > plans: their employers could offer group "gap"
> > coinsurance. The result is a two-tiered system, those
> > with basic benefits and those with enhanced benefits,
> > but more equitable that the current system.
>
> Hardly more equitable. Reminiscent of Orwell's Animal
> Farm - all animals are equal, some are just more equal
> than otehrs.
>

The current system of making medical access a privilege
is just that: many patients are more equal than others.

 

[Proconsul]

"Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| mike gray <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<3WHsc.26553$fF3.682402@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
| > Skeptic wrote:
| >
| > >>
| > >> With single payer, you've always had the coverage, so
| > >> how can there
be a
| > pre-existing
| > >> condition?
| > >
| > > Will all coverage be equal? Will there be levels of
| > > coverage? Will
there
| > > be coinsurance?
| >
| > One of the barriers to universal health care is the
| > leveling of coverage. For the uninsured and
| > underinsured, that's great news, but for union members,
| > government employees, and employees of generous
| > companies it will be a huge loss.
| >
| > All proposals to date have permitted coinsurance,
|
| Which proposals are those? Kerry's? Kucinich?
|
| > primarily to satisfy the groups that now have Cadillac
| > plans: their employers could offer group "gap"
| > coinsurance. The result is a two-tiered system, those
| > with basic benefits and those with enhanced benefits,
| > but more equitable that the current system.
|
| Hardly more equitable. Reminiscent of Orwell's Animal
| Farm - all animals are equal, some are just more equal
| than otehrs.
|
| Want to know what they call private supplemental insurance
| in the UK? Queue jumping insurance.
|
| The only reasonable proposal is the PPI version - allowing
| (mandating) access to private insurance for anyone and
| everyone. Using tax credits and incentives, not income
| redistribution. Making individuals responsible, in
| partnership with their employers, to get affordable
| coverage that meets THEIR needs.

IF such a system as you propose were to be put into effect,
it would certainly be infinitely better than the current
socialist model and it wouldn't be "single payer" any
longer.....

Total privatization and a competitive free market would
accomplish all you propose and more at lower costs - and
would deliver a higher quality of care for everyone.....

PC

|
| js

 

[Proconsul]

"George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
| "W. Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| news:[email protected]...
| > In alt.support.diabetes Proconsul <[email protected]>
| > wrote:
| >
| > : "Skeptic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| > : news:9Jbsc.103231$iF6.9532547@attbi_s02...
| > : |
| > : | "Ted Rosenberg" <[email protected]> wrote in
| > : | message news:[email protected]...
| > : | >
| > : | >
| > : | > Skeptic wrote:
| > : | > > I don't disagree with much of your overall
| > : | > > point, but let me try
| to
| > : | > <snipped for brevity)
| > : | >
| > : | > You have one major mistake, and it is a MAJOR one.
| > : | > Medicare overhead is a very small fraction of
| > : | > overhead of prepaid health plans.
| > : |
| > : | Any thoughts as to why?
| >
| > : It's not a fraction of prepaid health
| > : plans.....Medicare, like any government bureaucracy,
| > : lives on excessive paperwork managed by hordes
| of
| > : overpaid civil servants. They just conveniently report
| > : whatever part
of
| the
| > : cost they want to report....just as those who champion
| > : single payer
| don't
| > : tell you that all too often care is rationed and
| > : unavailable to many....another way of keeping costs
| > : down. I prefer the private sector
| and
| > : open competition - whenever you have a free market and
| > : competition,
| quality
| > : goes up and costs go down....that's an a priori
| > : truth.....
| >
| > : PC
| >
| > And HMO's don't ration healthcare unless they are
| > forced?
| >
| > Wendy
| >
| Mr. PC here ignores the fact that medicine here is
| twice as expensive
as
| average, and he blames it all on the the small part which
| provides
universal
| health insurance: Medicare. These shills for rapid rising
| costs forever are very shameful.

Read past posts again, slowly, for comprehension.....

Medicine is more expensive here because it is BETTER than
you will find anywhere else and because WE bear virtually
all the costs of the development of new methods, new
technology, new drugs, new everything which the rest of the
world gets for free since they contribute nothing to the
costs of such advances.....

I blamed nothing on Medicare - I took issue with the notion
that the socialistic nonsense relating to "single payer" had
any merit. It doesn't....read back again about the "free
market" and "competition" and "privatization" and "getting
government out"......!

PC

 

[Proconsul]

"George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
| "Proconsul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| news:M7qsc.21974$PU5.9829@fed1read06...
| >
| > "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in
| > message news:[email protected]
| > hlink.net...
| > |
| > | "Proconsul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| > | news:Ercsc.19015$PU5.11968@fed1read06...
| > || > | Any thoughts as to why?
| > | >
| > | > It's not a fraction of prepaid health
| > | > plans.....Medicare, like any government bureaucracy,
| > | > lives on excessive paperwork managed by
hordes
| > of
| > | > overpaid civil servants. They just conveniently
| > | > report whatever part
| of
| > | the
| > | > cost they want to report....
| > |
| > | You are like the Sierra Club claiming that the true
| > | cost of
gasoline
| is
| > | $15 a gallon because true costs are not computed. What
| > | you are doing
is
| > | claiming that all government data is a lie, and you
| > | and only you know
| the
| > | truth.
| >
| > Others have already answered your claim - but speaking
| > as one who has
| worked
| > with the Federal bureaucracy for more than forty years,
| > I can assert positively that NO Federal program reports
| > it's "costs" as it's "costs".
| You
| > have to review all the ancillary agencies, etc., and add
| > them all
| up....this
| > is not rocket science and it's nothing new. Government
| > data isn't a
"lie",
| > it's government data and you need to learn how to read
| > it and interpret
| it -
| > I'm only one of many thousands of people who know how to
| > do that.
Clearly,
| > you aren't among that number......
| >
|
|
| Take that up with the CBO. I guess you accuse them of
| secret undertakings too.

I've been actively involved in Federal budgeting for more
than forty years - and I accuse no one of anything. I merely
reported what "is" and what "has been" the standard
practices within the Federal bureacracy - beginning with the
first Washington administration.....! FWIW, the CBO is
probably the worst source of accurate information since it
is driven by partisanship. GSA is a better source, but not
much better. Common sense evaluation of public records by
people willing to use their brains and apply simple
standards works much better than relying on either one.....

PC

 

[Proconsul]

"Ted Rosenberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| Ahh, an honest man
|
| Ayn Rand would be proud!

I'm sure she would - I met her at several seminars years ago
when she was traveling around the country holding forth on
the "Objectivist" Philosophy. Although she was barely five
feet tall and weighed about ninety pounds, she was a
towering intellect and she was dead bang right about the
basic struggle, which was, and is, the individual versus the
collective....!

| Now, I don't agree with you, but you are stating an honest
| opinion instead of babbling on falsehoods about the state
| of Healthcare, and denying the administrative cost of Ppd
| hospitalization plans!!

I don't require agreement, and I welcome discussion, but I
have grown weary of the all too common practice in these
venues of demonizing people for the crime of holding a
different view. Much too "PC" for this "PC".....

PC

 

[Proconsul]

"Wes Groleau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| Evelyn Ruut wrote:
|
| > "Proconsul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| >>Furthermore, ANY social service provided to ANY illegal
| >>alien from ANY country should be charged back to the
| >>country of origin by having that
| > cost
| >>deducted off the top of the country of origin's
| >>foreign aid
payments.....
| >
| > Now THAT sounds like a good idea.
|
| Though I'm inclined to agree, I remember a quote:
|
| "For every complex problem, there is a simple, easy-to-
| understand wrong answer."

What's "wrong" with the simple answer? Don't you think the
country of origin should pay for their own citizens????

PC

 

[George Conklin]

"Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> mike gray <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<tLIsc.26690$fF3.685017@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > matt weber wrote:
> >
> > > Because in the USA, someone other than the patient
> > > usually pays, and patient is almost entirely isolated
> > > from the cost issue, as is the physician, when a
> > > patient walks in and says my shoulder is bothering me,
> > > can you write me a prescription for Celebrex or Viox?
> > > The physician will happily do so.
>
> Why is this necessarily a bad thing? Under the assumption
> that there is a doctor-patient relationship and the
> physician does an exam to look for something other than
> muscle or joint pain due to exertion or perhaps a touch of
> arthritis, thuis makes a lot of sense. What would you do
> in this case?

And the answer is the same drug you asked for without
spending the money.

 

[George Conklin]

"Proconsul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:UqQsc.32459$PU5.10260@fed1read06...
>
> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]
> link.net...
> |
> | "W. Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> | news:[email protected]...
> | > In alt.support.diabetes Proconsul <[email protected]>
> | > wrote:
> | >
> | > : "Skeptic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> | > : news:9Jbsc.103231$iF6.9532547@attbi_s02...
> | > : |
> | > : | "Ted Rosenberg" <[email protected]> wrote in
> | > : | message news:[email protected]...
> | > : | >
> | > : | >
> | > : | > Skeptic wrote:
> | > : | > > I don't disagree with much of your overall
> | > : | > > point, but let me
try
> | to
> | > : | > <snipped for brevity)
> | > : | >
> | > : | > You have one major mistake, and it is a MAJOR
> | > : | > one. Medicare overhead is a very small fraction
> | > : | > of overhead of
prepaid
> | > : | > health plans.
> | > : |
> | > : | Any thoughts as to why?
> | >
> | > : It's not a fraction of prepaid health
> | > : plans.....Medicare, like any government bureaucracy,
> | > : lives on excessive paperwork managed by
hordes
> | of
> | > : overpaid civil servants. They just conveniently
> | > : report whatever part
> of
> | the
> | > : cost they want to report....just as those who
> | > : champion single payer
> | don't
> | > : tell you that all too often care is rationed and
> | > : unavailable to many....another way of keeping costs
> | > : down. I prefer the private
sector
> | and
> | > : open competition - whenever you have a free market
> | > : and competition,
> | quality
> | > : goes up and costs go down....that's an a priori
> | > : truth.....
> | >
> | > : PC
> | >
> | > And HMO's don't ration healthcare unless they are
> | > forced?
> | >
> | > Wendy
> | >
> | Mr. PC here ignores the fact that medicine here is
> | twice as
expensive
> as
> | average, and he blames it all on the the small part
> | which provides
> universal
> | health insurance: Medicare. These shills for rapid
> | rising costs
forever
> | are very shameful.
>
> Read past posts again, slowly, for comprehension.....
>
> Medicine is more expensive here because it is BETTER

Ah, the big lie. Based on results, it is #38 in the
world. But then again I guess you think WHO is just a
bunch of commies.

 

[Proconsul]

"Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| Alan Mackenzie <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
| > Jonathan Smith <[email protected]> wrote on 24
| > May 2004 19:24:20 -0700:
| > > [email protected] wrote in message
| > > news:<[email protected]>...
| > >> In alt.cancer.support Evelyn Ruut <mama-
| > >> [email protected]> wrote:
| > >> > Make a single payer universal health care system
| > >> > and all the prices will go down.
| >
| > >> There is NO free lunch. Name a 'single payer' system
| > >> that doesn't have shortages and long delays for
| > >> complex treatments such as
surgery,
| > >> etc.
| >
| > > I'd even be impressed if she could name one where
| > > there isn't a
waiting
| > > list for simple things like diagnostic xrays and
| > > specialist referrals.
| >
| > Funny, that. Last Monday (8 days ago), I fell off my
| > bike and landed heavily on my ribs. Last Tuesday, on
| > waking up, the pain was still significantly above what
| > wasn't worrying, so I visited my Doc. He said, better
| > get those ribs (and left-hand middle finger) X-rayed. I
| > was back in that Doc's surgery little more than an hour
| > later, carrying an enveloppe with the requisite X-rays.
| > Luckily, nothing was broken.
| >
| > I'm not sure what you people mean exactly by a "single
| > payer" system.
| >
| > Here in Germany,
|
| Germany is NOT a single payer system.
|
| It is a employer mandated insurance system funded by
| employer contributions through a system of private (quasi-
| private) insurance carriers (Krankenkasse) and
| delivered through a primarily private delivery system
| on a fee for service or local budget (depending on
| provider type) basis.
|
| > health insurance through the "Krankenkassen" is
| > compulsory for people earning less that a fairly high
| > threshold (around 4,000 Euros/month). The premium paid
| > depends only on one's income, and is around 14% of
| > salary (with a maximum corresponding to that ~4,000
Euro
| > threshold), half of it being paid by the employer.
|
| It is an employment tax - on the employer. The 7% metric
| is one of convenience for accounting. There is an upper
| limit - the most you will pay is 250 Euro per month. If
| your earnings are under 1000 Euro or so a month, you get a
| subsidy.
|
| > The unemployed and poor are not excluded. This system
| > works very well, despite the recognised inefficiencies
| > and, to some extent, corruption.
|
| The system works well BECAUSE it is NOT single payer. In
| the US, the poor are not excluded. The unemployed are not
| excluded either - there is COBRA.
|
| > High earners may stay in the normal Krankenkassen
| > insurance scheme, or they may opt for private insurance,
| > or even decide to pay for treatment as they need it.
| > Having opted out of the Krankenkassen, they may not
| > later rejoin them, since the Krankenkassen operate on
| > the basis of
people
| > "overpaying" when young and healthy and "being
| > subsidised" later in life when no longer so healthy.
|
| No, that is not exactly true. However, the equilibrator
| is, once you go private, your annual premium is determined
| by the age cohort premium for the age at which you entered
| the system. In other words, as long as there is continuity
| if coverage there's no change in premium (other than for
| inflation).
|
| > The system has recently been "reformed" (worsened, I
| > would say) in that patients now have to pay a 10 Euro
| > charge per quarter on visiting a
doc.,
| > and have to pay fairly hefty prescription charges (10%
| > of the cost, min. 5 Euros, max 10 Euros, but never more
| > that the retail cost itself). Sadly, the government
| > didn't have the resolve to tackle the inefficiencies and
| > corruption in the various medical and insurance systems.
| > Maybe that will come.
|
| In Germany you have one of the more functional and
| equitable systems of health care financing. You also have
| some of the best quality care and excellent access. You
| also have the same set of problems that other systems face
| - you are spending a lot of money for this and the amount
| you spend keeps going up.
|
| > I would not swap this system for anything the USA
| > currently offers, and would be very wary of moving
| > there, even were I completely healthy.
|
| The system you describe IS the system that 163 million
| Americans have. Private insurance with premiums funded by
| contributions from employees and their employers with
| comprehensive cover, nominal cost sharing, and excellent
| access and outcomes.

Excellent points, well made - I hope everyone takes it
all in.....

PC

 

[George Conklin]

"Proconsul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4nQsc.32458$PU5.7279@fed1read06...
>
> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]
> link.net...
> |
> | "Proconsul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> | news:M7qsc.21974$PU5.9829@fed1read06...
> | >
> | > "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote
> | > in message news:[email protected]
> | > .earthlink.net...
> | > |
> | > | "Proconsul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> | > | news:Ercsc.19015$PU5.11968@fed1read06...
> | > || > | Any thoughts as to why?
> | > | >
> | > | > It's not a fraction of prepaid health
> | > | > plans.....Medicare, like any government
> | > | > bureaucracy, lives on excessive paperwork managed
> | > | > by
> hordes
> | > of
> | > | > overpaid civil servants. They just conveniently
> | > | > report whatever
part
> | of
> | > | the
> | > | > cost they want to report....
> | > |
> | > | You are like the Sierra Club claiming that the
> | > | true cost of
> gasoline
> | is
> | > | $15 a gallon because true costs are not computed.
> | > | What you are
doing
> is
> | > | claiming that all government data is a lie, and you
> | > | and only you
know
> | the
> | > | truth.
> | >
> | > Others have already answered your claim - but speaking
> | > as one who has
> | worked
> | > with the Federal bureaucracy for more than forty
> | > years, I can assert positively that NO Federal program
> | > reports it's "costs" as it's
"costs".
> | You
> | > have to review all the ancillary agencies, etc., and
> | > add them all
> | up....this
> | > is not rocket science and it's nothing new. Government
> | > data isn't a
> "lie",
> | > it's government data and you need to learn how to read
> | > it and
interpret
> | it -
> | > I'm only one of many thousands of people who know how
> | > to do that.
> Clearly,
> | > you aren't among that number......
> | >
> |
> |
> | Take that up with the CBO. I guess you accuse them of
> | secret undertakings too.
>
> I've been actively involved in Federal budgeting for more
> than forty
years -
> and I accuse no one of anything. I merely reported what
> "is" and what "has been" the standard practices within the
> Federal bureacracy - beginning
with
> the first Washington administration.....! FWIW, the CBO is
> probably the worst source of accurate information since it
> is driven by partisanship.

And is the census bureau making up fake immigrants in
order to destroy social security?

Do you find ghosts under your bed?

 

[George Conklin]

"Proconsul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:uuQsc.32461$PU5.15043@fed1read06...
>
> "Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message
> news:[email protected]...
> | Alan Mackenzie <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> | > Jonathan Smith <[email protected]> wrote on 24
> | > May 2004
19:24:20
> | > -0700:
> | > > [email protected] wrote in message
> | > > news:<[email protected]>...
> | > >> In alt.cancer.support Evelyn Ruut <mama-
> | > >> [email protected]> wrote:
> | > >> > Make a single payer universal health care system
> | > >> > and all the
prices
> | > >> > will go down.
> | >
> | > >> There is NO free lunch. Name a 'single payer'
> | > >> system that doesn't have shortages and long delays
> | > >> for complex treatments such as
> surgery,
> | > >> etc.
> | >
> | > > I'd even be impressed if she could name one where
> | > > there isn't a
> waiting
> | > > list for simple things like diagnostic xrays and
> | > > specialist
referrals.
> | >
> | > Funny, that. Last Monday (8 days ago), I fell off my
> | > bike and landed heavily on my ribs. Last Tuesday, on
> | > waking up, the pain was still significantly above what
> | > wasn't worrying, so I visited my Doc. He
said,
> | > better get those ribs (and left-hand middle finger)
> | > X-rayed. I was
back
> | > in that Doc's surgery little more than an hour later,
> | > carrying an enveloppe with the requisite X-rays.
> | > Luckily, nothing was broken.
> | >
> | > I'm not sure what you people mean exactly by a "single
> | > payer" system.
> | >
> | > Here in Germany,
> |
> | Germany is NOT a single payer system.
> |
> | It is a employer mandated insurance system funded by
> | employer contributions through a system of private (quasi-
> | private) insurance carriers (Krankenkasse) and delivered
> | through a primarily private delivery system on a fee for
> | service or local budget (depending on provider type)
> | basis.
> |
> | > health insurance through the "Krankenkassen" is
> | > compulsory for people earning less that a fairly high
> | > threshold
(around
> | > 4,000 Euros/month). The premium paid depends only on
> | > one's income,
and
> | > is around 14% of salary (with a maximum corresponding
> | > to that ~4,000
> Euro
> | > threshold), half of it being paid by the employer.
> |
> | It is an employment tax - on the employer. The 7% metric
> | is one of convenience for accounting. There is an upper
> | limit - the most you will pay is 250 Euro per month. If
> | your earnings are under 1000 Euro or so a month, you get
> | a subsidy.
> |
> | > The unemployed and poor are not excluded. This system
> | > works very well, despite the recognised inefficiencies
> | > and, to some extent, corruption.
> |
> | The system works well BECAUSE it is NOT single payer. In
> | the US, the poor are not excluded. The unemployed are
> | not excluded either - there is COBRA.
> |
> | > High earners may stay in the normal Krankenkassen
> | > insurance scheme, or they may opt for private
> | > insurance, or even decide to pay for
treatment
> | > as they need it. Having opted out of the
> | > Krankenkassen, they may not later rejoin them, since
> | > the Krankenkassen operate on the basis of
> people
> | > "overpaying" when young and healthy and "being
> | > subsidised" later in
life
> | > when no longer so healthy.
> |
> | No, that is not exactly true. However, the equilibrator
> | is, once you go private, your annual premium is
> | determined by the age cohort premium for the age at
> | which you entered the system. In other words, as long as
> | there is continuity if coverage there's no change in
> | premium (other than for inflation).
> |
> | > The system has recently been "reformed" (worsened, I
> | > would say) in
that
> | > patients now have to pay a 10 Euro charge per quarter
> | > on visiting a
> doc.,
> | > and have to pay fairly hefty prescription charges (10%
> | > of the cost,
min.
> | > 5 Euros, max 10 Euros, but never more that the retail
> | > cost itself). Sadly, the government didn't have the
> | > resolve to tackle the inefficiencies and corruption in
> | > the various medical and insurance systems. Maybe that
> | > will come.
> |
> | In Germany you have one of the more functional and
> | equitable systems of health care financing. You also
> | have some of the best quality care and excellent access.
> | You also have the same set of problems that other
> | systems face - you are spending a lot of money for this
> | and the amount you spend keeps going up.
> |
> | > I would not swap this system for anything the USA
> | > currently offers,
and
> | > would be very wary of moving there, even were I
> | > completely healthy.
> |
> | The system you describe IS the system that 163 million
> | Americans have. Private insurance with premiums funded
> | by contributions from employees and their employers with
> | comprehensive cover, nominal cost sharing, and excellent
> | access and outcomes.
>
> Excellent points, well made - I hope everyone takes it all
> in.....
>
> PC
>
>

Our outcomes make us about #38. That is a lot of money
for so-so medical outcomes.

And don't start in that we have the world's worst
patients, and refrain from racist comments too.

 

[George Conklin]

"Proconsul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:IiQsc.32457$PU5.20431@fed1read06...
>
> "Ted Rosenberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> | Ahh, an honest man
> |
> | Ayn Rand would be proud!
>
> I'm sure she would - I met her at several seminars years
> ago when she was traveling around the country holding
> forth on the "Objectivist"
Philosophy.
> Although she was barely five feet tall and weighed about
> ninety pounds,
she
> was a towering intellect and she was dead bang right about
> the basic struggle, which was, and is, the individual
> versus the collective....!
>

So John Gault rides again with more drivel. We should
have guessed it.

 

[Jonathan Smith]

mike gray <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Proconsul wrote:
>
> > Sorry, but you have it backwards. IF single payer is
> > approved, prices, i.e., TAXES, will go way up and
> > quality of service along with availability of service
> > will go way down as care is rationed to lower
> > costs......that's the way it's worked everywhere else in
> > the world where it's been tried.
>
> No argument there.
>
> > Our system, with all it's faults, is infinitely superior
> > to any other system so far devised by anyone.....and we
> > need to focus on what we KNOW works.....a free market
> > with competition and no government interference is the
> > key to lower costs and higher quality care - that's the
> > way it's always worked whenever it's been tried.....
>
> But the current system leaves out a substantial (1/6)
> portion of the population. The universal care argument is
> that at least basic health services should be a right, not
> a perq of the fortunate.

When you start counting up the uninsured you get some pretty
interesting numbers.

Some self-select to be uninsured even in the absence of
financial constraints. 8% of people earnming more than 75K
per year are uninsured (7 million total)

Some do not avail themselves of government programs that
would provide them with health care insurance - SCHIPS is
under enrolled by 5 to 7 million kids.

Some do not avail themselves of employer provided health
care insurance for various reasons. This could be as much as
7 or 8 million.

Some are illegal aliens and whether or not we should pay for
their health care is an intersting question that is
political, not medical. This is estimated to be in the 3
million range.

That is 24 million of the 42 million uninsured.

That leaves less than half with a bonafide gap. And this gap
grows every year as the state Medicaid systems, in an effort
to balnace their budgets, constrain the eligibility
criteria. 14 million with household incomes under 25K are
uninsured. That is 150% of the poverty line for a family of
4. Now - who's fault is that?

> It is not just the indigent that lack coverage, btw. We
> self employed folks have been priced out of the coverage
> market (in part by legislation requiring coverage of
> benefits that we'd be happy to forego), yet we still have
> to pay for the elderly (double!), the government workers,
> and (through the pricing mechanism) the corporate
> employees.

Like I said - give the right incentives and you'd be
surprised. The fact that you are self-employed, though, is
no defense for not buying into an insurance scheme.

> I have no problem with the free market restricting
> Ferraris to the fortunate few. I'm not so sure that
> healthcare falls into the same category.

You want me to buy your health care insurance for you? No, I
don't think so. I would support incentives for you to
pyurchase insurance, I would support a group buying pool
arrangement for self employeds, and I would support
minimalist coverage (catastrophic inpatient, for example).

js

 

[Skeptic]

"mike gray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> matt weber wrote:
>
> > Because in the USA, someone other than the patient
> > usually pays, and patient is almost entirely isolated
> > from the cost issue, as is the physician, when a patient
> > walks in and says my shoulder is bothering me, can you
> > write me a prescription for Celebrex or Viox? The
> > physician will happily do so.
>
> That is, indeed, a major problem with the US system and
> I'll give you another example. I sprained my wrist, went
> to the corner dugstore and bought an Ace bandage. $3 and
> it was fine in five weeks. My Medicare friend sprained his
> wrist, went to the ER, X-rays, orthopedic specialist, and
> seven weeks of physical therapy even though it was fine in
> five weeks.

I have sprained my ankles a countless number of times. I am
an MD and knowledgable with sports medicine. In the last 11
months I had two sprains. The first I put an ice pack on,
laid off the hardwood for a bit, and all was fine. The
second hurt so damn bad and was so swollen and had such
limited range of motion I thought there was at least a 70%
chance I fractured it. So I went through that lovely
ER/ortho tract that you describe above. XRays were negative
but based on the extreme pain and swelling, I went for a
second series with different views per the ortho doc. In the
end it was just a sprain and simply needs time (a lot of
time unfortunately).

I was a"treated" appropriately both times even though
once was a free self fix and the other was a costly
hospital visit.

 

[Skeptic]

"mike gray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Proconsul wrote:
>
> > Sorry, but you have it backwards. IF single payer is
> > approved, prices,
i.e.,
> > TAXES, will go way up and quality of service along with
> > availability of service will go way down as care is
> > rationed to lower costs......that's
the
> > way it's worked everywhere else in the world where it's
> > been tried.
>
> No argument there.
>
> > Our system, with all it's faults, is infinitely superior
> > to any other
system
> > so far devised by anyone.....and we need to focus on
> > what we KNOW works.....a free market with competition
> > and no government interference
is
> > the key to lower costs and higher quality care - that's
> > the way it's
always
> > worked whenever it's been tried.....
>
> But the current system leaves out a substantial (1/6)
> portion of the population. The universal care argument is
> that at least basic health services should be a right, not
> a perq of the fortunate.

In order to advance the discussion to a more meaningful
point, what are the actual stats... once you exclude those
who have an income, could afford health insurance, but opt
out of it because they are young, have other bills, saving
for a house, etc etc etc? That is not a small group. Now, a
point that I think most of us here could agree on - even
those against a single payer platform I think - exclude all
children as, imo, they deserve coverage and should not be
left hanging because of the incompetency of their parents.

What are we then left with? I'd be very curious to know if
anyone has some valid estimates on that. Now, of those that
would be left, any mental health workers here who could lend
an opinion as to how many of those really belong in some
sort of a psychiatric institution?

Some thoughts to consider.